On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:54:02PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> wrote:
> > If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
> > in the right order to avoid removal problems.
> >
> > Assuming
On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 02:54:02PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
> wrote:
> > If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
> > in the right order to avoid removal problems.
> >
> > Assuming the DT is constructed so that
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
> in the right order to avoid removal problems.
>
> Assuming the DT is constructed so that EPROBE_DEFER doesn't happen
> during
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe
wrote:
> If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
> in the right order to avoid removal problems.
>
> Assuming the DT is constructed so that EPROBE_DEFER doesn't happen
> during creating then a good way to avoid
If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
in the right order to avoid removal problems.
Assuming the DT is constructed so that EPROBE_DEFER doesn't happen
during creating then a good way to avoid removal problems is reversing
the order during depopulation.
If the DT has inter-dependencies, then the devices need to be removed
in the right order to avoid removal problems.
Assuming the DT is constructed so that EPROBE_DEFER doesn't happen
during creating then a good way to avoid removal problems is reversing
the order during depopulation.
6 matches
Mail list logo